Hi,
[Replying to multiple replies at once, all quoted text reformatted for
readability (seems people these days can't be bothered!?).]
[Warning: excessively nitpicky content ahead, here and there.]
# God Dang 2012-01-28:
> I'm creating a system where I've ended up with alot of gen_servers that
> provides a clean interface. When I run this under load I see that the
> gen_server:call's is becoming a bottleneck.
You're probably treating asynchronous things as synchronous somewhere along
the path, inflicting collateral damage to concurrent users? Synchronous
high-level API is fine, but if you know some operation is expensive or
depends on response from the outside world you should record request
context in ETS (row looking something like {Req_id, Timeout, From[, ...]}
and process requests out-of-order OR offload the actual processing to
short lived worker processes like Matthew Evans says OR a combination
of both OR somesuch.
My point being that gen_server:call/N, by itself, is *very* fast in
practice, so chances are you're doing something wrong elsewhere.
Other (unlikely) thing: you're not sending very large data structures in
messages, are you? That could hurt, but there are ways to address that
too if needed.
# Matthew Evans 2012-01-28:
> Another obvious answer is to provide back-pressure of some kind to prevent
> clients from requesting data when it is under load.
On external interfaces (or for global resource usage of some sort): yes, a
fine idea (a clear "must have", actually!); but doing this internally would
seem excessively defensive to me, unless further justification was given.
> You might want to change such an operation from:
>> handle_call({long_operation,Data},From,State) ->
> Rsp = do_lengthy_operation(Data),
> {reply, Rsp, State};
>> to:
>> handle_call({long_operation,Data},From,State) ->
> spawn(fun() -> Rsp = do_lengthy_operation(Data), gen_server:reply(Rsp,From) end),
> {noreply, State};
1. Why do people bother introducing "one-shot" variables for trivial
expressions they could have inlined? Means less context to maintain
when reading the code...
2. Surely you meant proc_lib:spawn_link/X there, didn't you? SASL logs
and fault propagation are the reason. While there are exceptions to
this, they're extremely rare.
3. The order of arguments to gen_server:reply/2 is wrong.
Regarding the general approach: yes, a fine idea too. Depending on what
do_lengthy_operation/1 does putting these workers under supervisor might
be called for.
# Jesper Louis Andersen 2012-01-28:
> This would be my first idea. Create an ETS table being protected.
> Writes to the table goes through the gen_server,
Yes, a fine idea too -- ETS is one of the less obvious cornerstones
of Erlang programming (but don't tell "purity" fascists )... One
detail: almost all of my ETS tables are public even when many of
them are really treated as private or protected, reason is to keep
high degree of runtime tweakability just in case (this might be a
bit superstitious I admit).
> -export([write/1, read/1]).
>> write(Obj) ->
> call({write, Obj}).
>> call(M) ->
> gen_server:call(?SERVER, M, infinity).
1. Abstracting trivial functionality such as call/1 above only
obfuscates code for precisely zero gain.
2. Same goes for typing "?SERVER" instead of the actual server
name. Using "?MODULE" is however alright, as long as it's
only referred to from current module (as it should).
3. No infinite timeouts without very good justification! You're
sacrificing a good default protective measure for no good
reason...
> but reads happen in the calling process of the API and does not go
> through the gen_server at all,
>> read(Key) ->
> case ets:lookup(?TAB, Key) of
> [] -> not_found;
> [_|_] = Objects -> {ok, Objects}
> end.
(2) from above also applies to "?TAB" here. More to the point, it's
sometimes perfectly OK to do table writes directly from caller's
context too, like:
write(Item) ->
true = ets:insert_new(actual_table_name, Item).
It can of course be very tricky business and needs good thinking first.
I bet you're aware of this, mentioning it just because it's a handy
trick that doesn't seem to be widely known.
> Creating the table with {read_concurrency, true} as the option will
> probably speed up reads by quite a bit as well. It is probably going
> to be a lot faster than having all caching reads going through that
> single point of contention. Chances are that just breaking parts of
> the chain is enough to improve the performance of the system.
Well, yes, avoiding central points of contention (such as blessed
processes or, you guessed it, ETS tables) is certainly good engineering
practice, but see first part of this email for other considerations.
BR,
-- Jachym